Opinion
2015-04-29
In the Matter of ALEEYAH T.M. (Anonymous). Harlem Dowling–Westside Center for Children and Family Services, petitioner-respondent; Shalicia A. (Anonymous), appellant, et al., respondent.
Anthony Augustus, Jamaica, N.Y., for appellant. James M. Abramson, PLLC, New York, N.Y. (Dawn M. Orsatti of counsel), for petitioner-respondent.
Anthony Augustus, Jamaica, N.Y., for appellant. James M. Abramson, PLLC, New York, N.Y. (Dawn M. Orsatti of counsel), for petitioner-respondent.
Robin Stone Einbinder, Jamaica, N.Y., attorney for the child.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, LEONARD B. AUSTIN, and HECTOR D. LaSALLE, JJ.
Appeal from an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Queens County (Mary R. O'Donoghue, J.), dated December 12, 2013. The order, after fact-finding and dispositional hearings, found that the mother permanently neglected the subject child, terminated her parental rights, and transferred guardianship and custody of the child to the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York and the petitioner for the purpose of adoption.
ORDERED that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The Family Court correctly determined that the petitioner demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that it made diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship ( seeSocial Services Law § 384–b[7]; Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 N.Y.2d 136, 142–143, 481 N.Y.S.2d 26, 470 N.E.2d 824), and that the mother's belated efforts to comply with the service plan the petitioner developed for her, several years after the child had entered foster care, were insufficient to preclude a finding of permanent neglect ( see Matter of Justice A.A. [Tina M.G.], 121 A.D.3d 886, 887, 994 N.Y.S.2d 187; Matter of Megan R.W. [Connie Lynn M.], 69 A.D.3d 737, 893 N.Y.S.2d 195). Moreover, the record demonstrated that the mother failed to gain insight into the problems that caused the child's removal and were preventing the child's return to her care ( see Matter of Nathaniel T., 67 N.Y.2d 838, 840, 501 N.Y.S.2d 647, 492 N.E.2d 775; Matter of Zechariah J. [Valrick J.], 84 A.D.3d 1087, 1088, 923 N.Y.S.2d 653; Matter of Joquan Jomaine–Anthony V., 39 A.D.3d 868, 869, 835 N.Y.S.2d 320).
Likewise, the Family Court's determination that it was in the child's best interests to terminate the mother's parental rights and free the child for adoption by her foster parents is supported by a preponderance of the evidence ( seeFamily Court Act § 631; Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 N.Y.2d at 147, 481 N.Y.S.2d 26, 470 N.E.2d 824). Contrary to the mother's contention, a suspended judgment was not warranted, despite her recent progress and efforts to avail herself of the services offered to her, as the child had bonded with the foster parents, who have cared for her for most of her life ( see Matter of Yamilette M.G. [Marlene M.], 118 A.D.3d 698, 700, 986 N.Y.S.2d 485; Matter of Jewels E.R. [Julien R.], 104 A.D.3d 773, 773–774, 961 N.Y.S.2d 248; Matter of Walter D.H. [Zaire L], 91 A.D.3d 950, 951, 938 N.Y.S.2d 567; Matter of Megan R.W. [Connie Lynn M.], 69 A.D.3d at 737–738, 893 N.Y.S.2d 195).
Finally, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the motion of the attorney for the child which was to be relieved from representing the child, as the motion was made toward the conclusion of the dispositional hearing ( see Rivardeneria v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 306 A.D.2d 394, 395, 760 N.Y.S.2d 877).